Posted on 12/11/2001 8:57:01 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
The sperm cell is alive. The egg prior to fertilization is alive. Life is a cycle. Like all cyclic processes, it can be somewhat arbitrary where they begin and end.
If life begins at conception, then perhaps it ends when the last offspring is conceived.
The joining of sperm and egg is the closest thing we have to an unambiguous event which can be used to distinguish between the period of time during which a given person exists and the time prior to their existence.
Trying to define a time later than the joining of sperm and egg (which was called "conception" when I took biology) is an exercise which probably cannot succeed.
Women are more affected by these issues than men. When women look past the self-serving aspects of this issue ( meaning birth control ) to examine things such as murder of a fetus and obligations for child support, progress will begin to be made.
The various factions are only about nine months apart in their thinking.
Human cloning makes it clear that a single skin cell can be used to create a human being every bit as deserving of protection as the person from whom the skin cell is derived.
If causing the needless death of a skin cell is not murder, then causing the needless death of a fertilized egg is perhaps not murder (religious views aside).
When, then, during the cloning process, does the skin cell become an individual deserving of protection?
Once the sperm penetrates the egg, the egg finishes it's final meiotic division. It is not until the final division occurs that genetic material from the sperm and egg meet and form a zygote. So, there is a time after penetration by sperm (otherwise known as fertilization), when the genetic materisll has not yet joined to form the zygote. During this time we have a fertilized egg. Try taking a class.
Why the discrepancy between yours and mine???
I like the facts too.
I wonder if you have fully disclosed the dates of publication of your dictionary, because such a definition simply did not exist within medicine in the early 70's.
Of course, the english language dictionaries are all unanimous.
But they have no agenda...yet...
For those interested in the facts of zygotic life, that which exits the fallopian tube and seeks implantation in the uterine lining is called a zygote then embryo (conception takes place in the fallopian tube, implantation--except in the life threatening case of a tubal pregnancy-- takes place in the uterus, the endometrial lining. After implantation the new individual life is known as a blastocyst and is drawing life support from the woman's body as soon as it can. Approximately eight weeks after conception then implantation (there can be as much as 14 days between the two events) the embryo is redefined as a fetus (Latin for child).
The term conception is used ambiguously, sometimes on purpose, taken to mean the process of fertilization and new expression of zygotic individual life and alternately taken to mean the result of successful implantation in the endometrial lining of the female uterus. Interestingly enough, the zygote actually initiates the seeking for life support following ingestion of uterine fluid ... the zygote literally invades the lining of the uterus. Once attached, life support is occurring for a new individual lifetime begun at union of sperm and egg (oocyte). From his comments, we may surmise Orrin Hatchling would conclude conception is the act of realized implantation; from my point of view, conception is the union of sperm and egg realized to express a new genetic individual life. From the perspective of 'real'patriot71 (I'll reserve on that designation just yet), it doesn't make any difference, as long as there is confusion and it can fan the obfuscatory flames to sustain that confusion. [Can you tell I don't particularly like the anal retentive types that want to create confusion? well I don't like them, anyway. I aslo don't like it when a dolt attacks my educated friends, like toenail or supercat.]
A friend told me about this a couple of years ago. I was shocked. And I still find it shocking.
I guess the AMA changed its definition in the early seventies.
You are an insulting pissant . . . I have no respect for liars like you . . .You are the type of fecal floater I've been advised to flush rather than wrestle with.
Cute, and the ad homenem flows like milk and honey, or something like that. You know, if you want some to take you serious, it might help if you stop using logical fallacies to try and prove your point. Now, if you have not already done so, I suggest you wipe the spittle from your screen, and listen carefully to what I am about to say: there is a short time, after the penetration of the egg by the sperm, but before the last meiotic division of the egg, where the egg is merely "fertilized" and not yet a zygote, therefore, a "fertilized egg". Now, soon after this last mieotic division, the genetic material from the sperm and the egg join to form a zygote. Then development does procede in the manner in which you explained in your last post.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
Have to wonder what people like pcl would say to something as illogical as this - there are enough words for post conception events - no need to reappropriate one, especially when its vital term already - what do they call conception now?! A very disgusting piece of doublespeak.
There is absolutely no truth to this statement whatsoever. The "right of privacy" that was the basis of Roe v. Wade was actually an extension of the "right of privacy" that was first discovered (i.e., made up) by the U.S. Supreme Court in a prior case (I believe it was Griswold v. State of Connecticut) involving a state law against selling contraceptives. There is absolutely no basis in Constitutional law for this "right of privacy," so as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned each state has the right to regulate the production and sale of contraceptives as it sees fit.
Sorry I don't (yet) have a reference to this. I'll try to find one tomorrow.
There has been a huge exodus of priests and nuns from the Church. Moreover, one must consider such an example as in Mexico, when so many children cannot even be cared for properly.
Since Roe v. Wade, this is true, but I do believe that the Clintons brought the standard of human decency to screeching halt. As Bill Bennet said, it was "The Death of Shame."
Lastly, the act of purposeful cancellation of life support for the newly implanted entity is abortion (and thus it is killing of another human, being a normal human at that stage in the lifetime begun at conception) any time during the 40 weeks of gestation. I will pass on discussing the rejection of life support as caused by withholding life support prior to implantation as the thread is focused on the redefining of conception, and the notion of application particularly to implantation which begins pregnancy.
Abortion 'clinics' practice serial killing, focusing on the most vulnerable and silent class of our fellow human beings. I consider that wrong and will not back away from characterizing it as such. Now, if someone wants to raise the issue of religious perspective regarding the wrongness of abortion, I'll leave that task to others.
********
The right of privacy misapplied by the leftist/liberal SCOTUS of 1973 does exist as far as the right to reject becoming pregnant . . .There is absolutely no truth to this statement whatsoever. Uh, if I restate the obvious, would you address that also? seriously, I wish to posit that the Constitution does protect the right of a woman to choose not to become pregnant (not in wording of 'right to privacy', that was judicial fiat on the part of the SCOTUS) and can be supported, I believe, with fifth and fourteenth amendments. Perhaps I misstated what I intended to address, namely, that a woman has a right, for her life, to NOT get pregnant if she so desires, but that right should in no way be misconstrued to mean she has a right to hire a serial killer to off a second individual human being based on the presence within her body as long as the act that brought that innocent individual to be there is not forced. As one can readily discern, I'm a goat where legaleaze(sp?) is concerned; I refuse to be a sheep for the fiat-laden social engineering of the leftist court, however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.